p.3 #2 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
molson wrote:
I certainly wouldn't need to crop as much...
Thanks. True. I like the images anyway.
I am amazed you have these Hummingbirds around all year.
Here in the mountains of Northern New Mexico the Hummers return in late April and leave by the end of September.
Right now the Sandhill Cranes and Snow Geese are heading North overhead.
p.3 #4 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
molson wrote:
There are a few that hang around all year. Keeping the feeders from freezing can be a challenge at times, like the weather we're having now.
Thanks. What a fantastic shot! I love it!
Around here non-native trees get fooled almost every year.
Apple, Plum, and Apricot trees in our backyard have their blossoms.
Then in late April/early May comes a cold front with snow and wipes out the blossoms.
Native trees however know that and only have their blossoms a few weeks after the last frost.
p.3 #5 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
My very initial impressions of the 100-200 is that it easily beats the Mamiya 105-210 by a good margin at the short end, and at the long end it beats it into the corners, but not by as much. The Mamiya is clearly a better performer at the long end than the short, but the 100-200 is quite consistent throughout the focal range and beats it throughout for sharpness. The Mamiya looks every bit as sharp in the center, but the corners are much softer compared to the Fuji. The Mamiya lens at f11 is worse in the corners than the Fuji is at f5.6 it appears, but there will likely be a bit more falloff at that aperture.
It also appears to be nearly as sharp wide open as it is at f11 into the corners. It is quite remarkably good and even overall. It should make a great landscape shooter's lens for evenness of field.
I'll be testing it out this weekend a bit in anticipation of a trip to Yosemite in a few weeks, but my initial impressions are very positive.
p.3 #7 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
Sauseschritt wrote:
I've heard it a lot about the 63/2.8.
I have not. The 63 has been criticized for its old-school stepper motor autofocus (slow but extremely accurate); and, there were some initial quality issues in the first batch not related to optical quality.
Sharpness of the 63 (and I have had three copies of it) exceeds that of the 32-64 at 64 and is on par with the rest of the GF primes.
p.3 #8 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
highdesertmesa wrote:
I have not. The 63 has been criticized for its old-school stepper motor autofocus (slow but extremely accurate); and, there were some initial quality issues in the first batch not related to optical quality.
Sharpness of the 63 (and I have had three copies of it) exceeds that of the 32-64 at 64 and is on par with the rest of the GF primes.
I feel that the 63mm is better than the 32-64, but the differences are remarkably small. So small that I am debating selling the 63 (and the 45, actually) and just sticking with the 32-64 as my primary short/wide lens (with the 23 for the super wide duties). I did ultimately do that with my Sony kit; eliminating the Loxia lenses in favor of a good wide zoom. I found after having both that I rarely ever pulled the Loxia lenses out to shoot, so they went away.
I do like the smaller size of the fixed lenses, and probably will look at the 50 once it is out as a ultra light single lens to pair with the body, but in my limited use, the 32-64 is very impressive and has not let me down yet. I'd much prefer a 30/35mm lens as a small walkaround lens over a 50mm though. To me, that should be the next lens Fuji makes. Don't make a TS lens until the bases are covered, and right now, they really need a 24mm equivalent lens.
p.3 #9 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
mjm6 wrote:
My very initial impressions of the 100-200 is that it easily beats the Mamiya 105-210 by a good margin at the short end, and at the long end it beats it into the corners, but not by as much. The Mamiya is clearly a better performer at the long end than the short
And, if anyone in the lower 48 is wanting to test this, shoot me a PM for the one I have listed... or maybe you don't want to pay 10x the cost if you can settle with MF...
p.3 #10 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
mjm6 wrote:
I feel that the 63mm is better than the 32-64, but the differences are remarkably small. So small that I am debating selling the 63 (and the 45, actually) and just sticking with the 32-64 as my primary short/wide lens (with the 23 for the super wide duties). I did ultimately do that with my Sony kit; eliminating the Loxia lenses in favor of a good wide zoom. I found after having both that I rarely ever pulled the Loxia lenses out to shoot, so they went away.
I do like the smaller size of the fixed lenses, and probably will look at the 50 once it is out as a ultra light single lens to pair with the body, but in my limited use, the 32-64 is very impressive and has not let me down yet. I'd much prefer a 30/35mm lens as a small walkaround lens over a 50mm though. To me, that should be the next lens Fuji makes. Don't make a TS lens until the bases are covered, and right now, they really need a 24mm equivalent lens.
I'm doing nearly the same. I have the 32-64 and don't plan to buy the 45 and 63, even though I've always been a prime guy. While I haven't actually tried the 45 and 63 personally, the tests on DPR that I examined, plus comments from many users, make me confident that there is very little difference between those and the zoom. I'm planning to get the 23 next time there's a sale, and have a Canon 24 tilt-shift to use until then. (And afterward, for the times when I want movements.)
I never expected to sell my Loxia 21, but that's exactly what I'm about to do. I don't plan to use the A7RIII anymore for landscape unless something unforeseen should happen to the Fuji while I'm on a trip. In that event, I have the Sony 12-24 zoom that I usually use for infrared, which is good enough to press into service for visible light if need be. I thought about selling my other Loxiae as well (35, 50, 85), but since I'm not seeing any of my other lenses doing as well for infrared, I guess I'm going to keep them.
p.3 #11 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
Interestingly, the only reason I got the 32-64 was because I have a strong preference for a 24mm lens and Fuji only offers that lens in that focal length, so I got it to use at the wide end. It turns out it is so good that I find myself not using the other lenses.
p.3 #12 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I'm doing nearly the same. I have the 32-64 and don't plan to buy the 45 and 63, even though I've always been a prime guy. While I haven't actually tried the 45 and 63 personally, the tests on DPR that I examined, plus comments from many users, make me confident that there is very little difference between those and the zoom. I'm planning to get the 23 next time there's a sale, and have a Canon 24 tilt-shift to use until then. (And afterward, for the times when I want movements.)
I never expected to sell my Loxia 21, but that's exactly what I'm about to do. I don't plan to use the A7RIII anymore for landscape unless something unforeseen should happen to the Fuji while I'm on a trip. In that event, I have the Sony 12-24 zoom that I usually use for infrared, which is good enough to press into service for visible light if need be. I thought about selling my other Loxiae as well (35, 50, 85), but since I'm not seeing any of my other lenses doing as well for infrared, I guess I'm going to keep them....Show more →
The GF 63 is dirt cheap in the kit combos — I paid $500 for my current one bundled with the 50R. Price aside, the 63 is worth owning for the bokeh and look at close range wide open. And at sunset/twilight when f4 dies a sad death, the 63 kicks ass and takes names — just unbelievable color and contrast to boot.
I would agree that both 45 and 63 with 32-64 might be overkill, but I think the 63 still makes sense. The 45 — I rarely like the 35mm-equiv FOV, so I sold mine.
p.3 #14 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
highdesertmesa wrote:
The GF 63 is dirt cheap in the kit combos — I paid $500 for my current one bundled with the 50R. Price aside, the 63 is worth owning for the bokeh and look at close range wide open. And at sunset/twilight when f4 dies a sad death, the 63 kicks ass and takes names — just unbelievable color and contrast to boot.
I would agree that both 45 and 63 with 32-64 might be overkill, but I think the 63 still makes sense. The 45 — I rarely like the 35mm-equiv FOV, so I sold mine.
Too late for a combo deal for me, but....question about the 63. (And the 45, for you or for others who may like it more than you do.) Other than 2.8 vs 4, do you think there's a difference in rendering? Does it look different at 4 vs the zoom? I don't do people photography at all, so that's not a concern.
My decision not to get the primes is because my plan is to use the zoom for landscape. For flowers, 2.8 is usually not fast enough for what I want, and I have other adapted lenses that are just right. The GF 2.8 primes lie in an awkward in-between zone that doesn't fill a need for me. However....I'm always interested in other options and viewpoints, and if you think there is something special about their rendering (other than just being a stop faster than the zoom), I'm all ears!
p.3 #16 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
I do not see much different in image quality between the 63 prime and zoom. By f5.6 do not remember any real difference. Did not do f11 16 comparison. For landscape shooter, the zoom is really great. There have been plenty of shots where 63mm is too long for the composition. I have the 45mm too but have yet to do a comparison. For landscape shooting, I generally take the 23mm, 32-64mm zoom and 120mm macro. In most cases, the 32-64mm is my main lens.
p.3 #17 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
mark1958 wrote:
I do not see much different in image quality between the 63 prime and zoom. By f5.6 do not remember any real difference. Did not do f11 16 comparison. For landscape shooter, the zoom is really great. There have been plenty of shots where 63mm is too long for the composition. I have the 45mm too but have yet to do a comparison. For landscape shooting, I generally take the 23mm, 32-64mm zoom and 120mm macro. In most cases, the 32-64mm is my main lens.
After I get the 23 and 100-200, my landscape set will be 23, 32-64, and 100-200. I'll probably put in my Mamiya 80/1.9 to fill in, and if I think I'll need it, the Fuji 250 + 1.4x extender. Completely different from my flower set, which has all fast lenses and macros of various lengths.
p.3 #18 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
I am still on the fence about the 100-200mm. I really like the 120mm macro because I can use it for macro and sometimes comes in handy on landscape trips.
23mm comes in handy and always take that one.. even if don't use it as often
p.3 #19 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
@DannyBurkPhoto we are after pretty much the same setup for landscapes. GF23/4, GF32-64/4 & GF100-200/5.6. I'll probably add the GF1.4 and GF250/4 when I can afford them.
p.3 #20 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
After I get the 23 and 100-200, my landscape set will be 23, 32-64, and 100-200. I'll probably put in my Mamiya 80/1.9 to fill in, and if I think I'll need it, the Fuji 250 + 1.4x extender. Completely different from my flower set, which has all fast lenses and macros of various lengths.
Funny, sometimes I forget to see who I’m responding to when I reply — for tripod work like I’d assume you’re doing, I’d stick with the 32-64 all day long — quite versatile and less distortion (only noticeable if you have a house or buildings in the corners). There is no real “rendering” difference at infinity since I personally reserve that word for referencing bokeh and focus falloff at mid to close distance. The 63 does have better color and contrast punch to it, but probably not enough to make a difference if infinity shots are your only use for it. For me the 63 doubles as landscape and lightweight autofocus tourist lens. Walkabout shots with the 32-64 left me ho-hum when trying to get unique wide open shots at MFD.
— for tripod work like I’d assume you’re doing, I’d stick with the 32-64 all day long — quite versatile and less distortion (only noticeable if you have a house or buildings in the corners). There is no real “rendering” difference at infinity since I personally reserve that word for referencing bokeh and focus falloff at mid to close distance. The 63 does have better color and contrast punch to it, but probably not enough to make a difference if infinity shots are your only use for it. For me the 63 doubles as landscape and lightweight autofocus tourist lens. Walkabout shots with the 32-64 left me ho-hum when trying to get unique wide open shots at MFD.